'Saving the lives of our dogs': the development of canine distemper vaccine in interwar Britain.

This paper examines the successful campaign in Britain to develop canine distemper vaccine between 1922 and 1933. The campaign mobilized disparate groups around the common cause of using modern science to save the nation's dogs from a deadly disease. Spearheaded by landed patricians associated with the country journal The Field, and funded by dog owners and associations, it relied on collaborations with veterinary professionals, government scientists, the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the commercial pharmaceutical house the Burroughs Wellcome Company (BWC). The social organization of the campaign reveals a number of important, yet previously unexplored, features of interwar science and medicine in Britain. It depended on a patronage system that drew upon a large base of influential benefactors and public subscriptions. Coordinated by the Field Distemper Fund, this system was characterized by close relationships between landed elites and their social networks with senior science administrators and researchers. Relations between experts and non-experts were crucial, with high levels of public engagement in all aspects of research and vaccine development. At the same time, experimental and commercial research supported under the campaign saw dynamic interactions between animal and human medicine, which shaped the organization of the MRC's research programme and demonstrated the value of close collaboration between veterinary and medical science, with the dog as a shared object and resource. Finally, the campaign made possible the translation of 'laboratory' findings into field conditions and commercial products. Rather than a unidirectional process, translation involved negotiations over the very boundaries of the 'laboratory' and the 'field', and what constituted a viable vaccine. This paper suggests that historians reconsider standard historical accounts of the nature of patronage, the role of animals, and the interests of landed elites in interwar British science and medicine.

One health, many histories.

In another of Veterinary Record's series of articles on One Health, Abigail Woods and Michael Bresalier discuss the complex history of veterinary-medical collaboration and highlight the social, political and institutional factors that have contributed towards shaping the One Health model.

Fighting flu: military pathology, vaccines, and the conflicted identity of the 1918-19 pandemic in Britain.

This article explores the decisive role of British military medicine in shaping official approaches to the 1918 influenza pandemic. It contends that British approaches were defined through a system of military pathology, which had been established by the War Office as part of the mobilization of medicine for the First World War. Relying on the bacteriological laboratory for the identification and control of pathogenic agents, military pathology delivered therapeutic and preventive measures against a range of battlefield diseases, and military and civilian authorities trusted that it could do the same with influenza. This article traces how it shaped efforts to establish the etiology of the pandemic and to produce a general influenza vaccine. It highlights the challenges involved in both strategies. Understanding the central role of military pathology helps make sense of the nature, direction, scale, and limitations of medical mobilization against the pandemic in Britain and the authority accorded to specific medical bodies for elaborating and coordinating strategies. Crucially, it demands that we rethink the relationship between the war and pandemic as one about the social organization of medical knowledge and institutions.

'A most protean disease': aligning medical knowledge of modern influenza, 1890-1914.

This article reconstructs the process of defining influenza as an infectious disease in the contexts of British medicine between 1890 and 1914. It shows how professional agreement on its nature and identity involved aligning different forms of knowledge produced in the field (public health), in the clinic (metropolitan hospitals) and in the laboratory (bacteriology). Two factors were crucial to this process: increasing trust in bacteriology and the organisation of large-scale collective investigations into influenza by Britain's central public authority, the Medical Department of the Local Government Board. These investigations integrated epidemiological, clinical and bacteriological evidence into a new definition of influenza as a specific infection, in which a germ - Bacillus influenzae - was determined as playing a necessary but not sufficient role in its aetiology, transmission and pathogenesis. In defining 'modern influenza', bacteriological concepts and techniques were adapted to and selectively incorporated into existing clinical, pathological and epidemiological approaches. Mutual alignment thus was crucial to its construction and, more generally, to shaping developing relationships between laboratory, clinical and public health medicine in turn-of-the-century Britain. While these relationships were marked by tension and conflict, they were also characterised by important patterns of convergence, in which the problems, interests and practices of public health professionals, clinicians and laboratory pathologists were made increasingly commensurable. Rather than retrospectively judge the late nineteenth-century definition of influenza as being based on the wrong microbe, this article argues for the need to examine how it was established through a particular alignment of medical knowledge, which then underpinned medical approaches to the disease up to and beyond the devastating 1918-19 pandemic.

Uses of a Pandemic: Forging the Identities of Influenza and Virus Research in Interwar Britain.

This paper counters the tendency to retrospectively viralise the 1918-19 pandemic and to gloss the important historiographical point that, in Britain, such knowledge was in-the-making between 1918 and 1933. It traces the genesis of influenza's virus identity to British efforts in 1918-19 to specify the cause of the pandemic and it examines how, in the 1920s, the British Medical Research Council used the connection between a virus and the pandemic to justify the development of virus research and to make influenza a core problem around which it was organised. It shows that the organisation of medical virus research was inextricably linked to the pandemic before the actual discovery of flu virus in 1933. Recognising that the relationship between the virus and the disease itself has a history demands we rethink the pandemic's medical scientific legacy and the crucial role of virus research in shaping its history.